Impact Factor: outdated artefact or stepping-stone to journal certification?
arXiv:1201.3076 · doi:10.1007/s11192-011-0561-0
Abstract
A review of Garfield's journal impact factor and its specific implementation as the Thomson Reuters Impact Factor reveals several weaknesses in this commonly-used indicator of journal standing. Key limitations include the mismatch between citing and cited documents, the deceptive display of three decimals that belies the real precision, and the absence of confidence intervals. These are minor issues that are easily amended and should be corrected, but more substantive improvements are needed. There are indications that the scientific community seeks and needs better certification of journal procedures to improve the quality of published science. Comprehensive certification of editorial and review procedures could help ensure adequate procedures to detect duplicate and fraudulent submissions.
25 pages, 12 figures, 6 tables
References in corpus (3)
Cited by in corpus (9)
- A Review of Theory and Practice in Scientometrics
- Achieving competitive advantage in academia through early career coauthorship with top scientists
- Geometric journal impact factors correcting for individual highly cited articles
- The influence of online posting dates on the bibliometric indicators of scientific articles
- Field-normalized Impact Factors: A Comparison of Rescaling versus Fractionally Counted IFs
- A review of the literature on citation impact indicators
- Ruling Out Static Latent Homophily in Citation Networks
- A Novel Kuhnian Ontology for Epistemic Classification of STM Scholarly Articles
- Deep Impact: Unintended consequences of journal rank